[CTcard]

  As high as the bar is now at LSJU, once the % of international students rises aboe 10%, to 15-20% as it should, the bar will take a quantum leap, just as it has over the past 5-10 years.

Stanford currently claims that 11.8% of it's class of 2017 went to a foreign high school. http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile
My memory of when I was one of those people in the mid-80s was that the number was "about 10%".

From the discussion of being an international university, and the apparent high profile of Stanford in many countries - particularly in Asia, I am surprised the change isn't much larger. Though these days that my memory is becoming increasingly unreliable.

[CTcard]

  As high as the bar is now at LSJU, once the % of international students rises aboe 10%, to 15-20% as it should, the bar will take a quantum leap, just as it has over the past 5-10 years.

Stanford currently claims that 11.8% of it's class of 2017 went to a foreign high school. http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile
My memory of when I was one of those people in the mid-80s was that the number was "about 10%".

From the discussion of being an international university, and the apparent high profile of Stanford in many countries - particularly in Asia, I am surprised the change isn't much larger. Though these days that my memory is becoming increasingly unreliable.

[Mick]

Stanford currently claims that 11.8% of it's class of 2017 went to a foreign high school. http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile

I went to a foreign high school too.  It was in Santa Cruz.

[Mick]

Stanford currently claims that 11.8% of it's class of 2017 went to a foreign high school. http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile

I went to a foreign high school too.  It was in Santa Cruz.

[82 Card]

[quote author=82 Card link=topic=9773.msg87065#msg87065 date=1396482639]
[quote author=82lsju link=topic=9773.msg87030#msg87030 date=1396454062]
below is a link to his essay.
....
http://nypost.com/2014/04/02/this-is-the...l-8-ivies/

I tried reading the essay. He lost me right away with "opting to select". He repeatedly uses three words when 1 would would be better. I don't think I could have gotten into Penn in 1975 with that essay.
[/quote]


And sometimes one word would be better than two.... :P
[/quote]

Hmmm. Not sure when I started stuttering. Must have had a stroke.

[82 Card]

[quote author=82 Card link=topic=9773.msg87065#msg87065 date=1396482639]
[quote author=82lsju link=topic=9773.msg87030#msg87030 date=1396454062]
below is a link to his essay.
....
http://nypost.com/2014/04/02/this-is-the...l-8-ivies/

I tried reading the essay. He lost me right away with "opting to select". He repeatedly uses three words when 1 would would be better. I don't think I could have gotten into Penn in 1975 with that essay.
[/quote]


And sometimes one word would be better than two.... :P
[/quote]

Hmmm. Not sure when I started stuttering. Must have had a stroke.

[fullmetal]

I interviewed a fair number of applicants this year, and I just found out the results today.  I was pretty shocked as only one of the three "locks" I had predicted from my pool made it in.  Another "lock" was waitlisted (the most impressive of the group, imho)...and everyone else was denied. 

I'm actually a little torn up about it.  I really thought all three of them were Stanford material, and there was some emotional investment in those interview evaluations.  Contrast that to my REA interviewees, of whom neither was superlative--one got in.

[fullmetal]

I interviewed a fair number of applicants this year, and I just found out the results today.  I was pretty shocked as only one of the three "locks" I had predicted from my pool made it in.  Another "lock" was waitlisted (the most impressive of the group, imho)...and everyone else was denied. 

I'm actually a little torn up about it.  I really thought all three of them were Stanford material, and there was some emotional investment in those interview evaluations.  Contrast that to my REA interviewees, of whom neither was superlative--one got in.

[FarmBoy]

I interviewed a fair number of applicants this year, and I just found out the results today.  I was pretty shocked as only one of the three "locks" I had predicted from my pool made it in.  Another "lock" was waitlisted (the most impressive of the group, imho)...and everyone else was denied. 

Conversely, I interviewed 5 prospects and 1 was admitted. Honestly, I was not overly impressed by any of them, but the one I thought was the best candidate was denied. The on admitted was not spectacular, IMO. I think there are just vagauries in the process that can't be accounted for.

Also, the girl who was admitted is a foreigner doing her last 2 years of high school in the states. She's an international student, but wouldn't show up in the "foreign high school" statistics. I interviewed another guy with a similar situation. So this may under represent internationa.

[FarmBoy]

I interviewed a fair number of applicants this year, and I just found out the results today.  I was pretty shocked as only one of the three "locks" I had predicted from my pool made it in.  Another "lock" was waitlisted (the most impressive of the group, imho)...and everyone else was denied. 

Conversely, I interviewed 5 prospects and 1 was admitted. Honestly, I was not overly impressed by any of them, but the one I thought was the best candidate was denied. The on admitted was not spectacular, IMO. I think there are just vagauries in the process that can't be accounted for.

Also, the girl who was admitted is a foreigner doing her last 2 years of high school in the states. She's an international student, but wouldn't show up in the "foreign high school" statistics. I interviewed another guy with a similar situation. So this may under represent internationa.

[CTcard]

So this may under represent internationa.

Well, I and many students I knew when I was there were ex-pats returning to the USA for college. I don't know, but it's hard to imagine such folks aren't still numerous.

So, depending upon your preferred definition of "internationa", this may be an over-representation.  Or not. 

[CTcard]

So this may under represent internationa.

Well, I and many students I knew when I was there were ex-pats returning to the USA for college. I don't know, but it's hard to imagine such folks aren't still numerous.

So, depending upon your preferred definition of "internationa", this may be an over-representation.  Or not. 

[CornFed]

".  .  .  .  .  . depending upon your preferred definition of "internationa", this may be an over-representation."

Based on a vein within a thread started by Hulk elsewhere on this board, I would point out that this would be almost certainly an under-representation as it would exclude the male international students.  :D  {grin}

[CornFed]

".  .  .  .  .  . depending upon your preferred definition of "internationa", this may be an over-representation."

Based on a vein within a thread started by Hulk elsewhere on this board, I would point out that this would be almost certainly an under-representation as it would exclude the male international students.  :D  {grin}

[Spiny_Norman]

It used to be best to be from North Dakota.  However, given all of the oil money in that state right now, it might be better to have your kids attend high school in South Dakota.

At the Stanford+Connects conference in Pasadena two months ago, President Hennessy said that Stanford had received applications from 49 of the 50 states for the class of 2018.  The one missing was a Dakota, but he could not remember which.  If I was a smart ambitious high school sophomore or junior in the audience, I would consider that to be useful information . . .

[Spiny_Norman]

It used to be best to be from North Dakota.  However, given all of the oil money in that state right now, it might be better to have your kids attend high school in South Dakota.

At the Stanford+Connects conference in Pasadena two months ago, President Hennessy said that Stanford had received applications from 49 of the 50 states for the class of 2018.  The one missing was a Dakota, but he could not remember which.  If I was a smart ambitious high school sophomore or junior in the audience, I would consider that to be useful information . . .

[CTcard]

President Hennessy said that Stanford had received applications from 49 of the 50 states for the class of 2018.  The one missing was a Dakota, but he could not remember which. 

Actually, kind of surprising that out of the 40,000+ applications Stanford received there wasn't at least one from each of the 50 states.

[CTcard]

President Hennessy said that Stanford had received applications from 49 of the 50 states for the class of 2018.  The one missing was a Dakota, but he could not remember which. 

Actually, kind of surprising that out of the 40,000+ applications Stanford received there wasn't at least one from each of the 50 states.

[larkinforever]

I do find it interesting that there are more applicants to Stanford (42,167) than Harvard (34,295) (which hasn't consistently been the case until the past few years) and that the overall acceptance rate for Stanford (5.07%) is lower than Harvard (5.9%) (which hasn't been the case until the past two cycles - even with relatively similar class sizes, it takes a large number of additional applicants for Stanford's overall acceptance rate to be lower than Harvard's, because of the significantly higher acceptance rate for Harvard early applicants (21.14%) compared to Stanford early applicants (10.77%)). The yield is still consistently higher at Harvard (81.9% last year) than Stanford (76.0%), however, and it will be interesting to see the numbers for this year (the same early applicant effect will also impact yield, as Harvard fills approximately 58% of its class through early applicants while Stanford fills 44% of its class through early applicants).

[larkinforever]

I do find it interesting that there are more applicants to Stanford (42,167) than Harvard (34,295) (which hasn't consistently been the case until the past few years) and that the overall acceptance rate for Stanford (5.07%) is lower than Harvard (5.9%) (which hasn't been the case until the past two cycles - even with relatively similar class sizes, it takes a large number of additional applicants for Stanford's overall acceptance rate to be lower than Harvard's, because of the significantly higher acceptance rate for Harvard early applicants (21.14%) compared to Stanford early applicants (10.77%)). The yield is still consistently higher at Harvard (81.9% last year) than Stanford (76.0%), however, and it will be interesting to see the numbers for this year (the same early applicant effect will also impact yield, as Harvard fills approximately 58% of its class through early applicants while Stanford fills 44% of its class through early applicants).

[Bruce Wang]

The yield is still consistently higher at Harvard (81.9% last year) than Stanford (76.0%).

My impression is that Harvard accepts many more legacies and development projects than Stanford.  So they might have a larger pool of admits that they know will matriculate.

[Bruce Wang]

The yield is still consistently higher at Harvard (81.9% last year) than Stanford (76.0%).

My impression is that Harvard accepts many more legacies and development projects than Stanford.  So they might have a larger pool of admits that they know will matriculate.

[fullmetal]

I had a Stanford dormmate from South Dakota, but that was some years ago.

[fullmetal]

I had a Stanford dormmate from South Dakota, but that was some years ago.

[Farm93]

I do find it interesting that there are more applicants to Stanford (42,167) than Harvard (34,295) (which hasn't consistently been the case until the past few years) and that the overall acceptance rate for Stanford (5.07%) is lower than Harvard (5.9%) (which hasn't been the case until the past two cycles - even with relatively similar class sizes, it takes a large number of additional applicants for Stanford's overall acceptance rate to be lower than Harvard's, because of the significantly higher acceptance rate for Harvard early applicants (21.14%) compared to Stanford early applicants (10.77%)). The yield is still consistently higher at Harvard (81.9% last year) than Stanford (76.0%), however, and it will be interesting to see the numbers for this year (the same early applicant effect will also impact yield, as Harvard fills approximately 58% of its class through early applicants while Stanford fills 44% of its class through early applicants).

I did not have time this morning to do this properly (AYSO-stuff), but it looks like the numbers actually imply a similar yield rate at both schools for the two groups.

If you imagine a roughly 30% spread in yield rates between the early applicant pool and the traditional pool then both schools could have the similar yield rate for both early applicants and traditional date applicants.  The difference in yield could come exclusively from the greater number of early applicants accepted.  I quickly used 95% and 65% to get numbers that would fit, and would produce numbers similar to 82% & 76%.

[Farm93]

I do find it interesting that there are more applicants to Stanford (42,167) than Harvard (34,295) (which hasn't consistently been the case until the past few years) and that the overall acceptance rate for Stanford (5.07%) is lower than Harvard (5.9%) (which hasn't been the case until the past two cycles - even with relatively similar class sizes, it takes a large number of additional applicants for Stanford's overall acceptance rate to be lower than Harvard's, because of the significantly higher acceptance rate for Harvard early applicants (21.14%) compared to Stanford early applicants (10.77%)). The yield is still consistently higher at Harvard (81.9% last year) than Stanford (76.0%), however, and it will be interesting to see the numbers for this year (the same early applicant effect will also impact yield, as Harvard fills approximately 58% of its class through early applicants while Stanford fills 44% of its class through early applicants).

I did not have time this morning to do this properly (AYSO-stuff), but it looks like the numbers actually imply a similar yield rate at both schools for the two groups.

If you imagine a roughly 30% spread in yield rates between the early applicant pool and the traditional pool then both schools could have the similar yield rate for both early applicants and traditional date applicants.  The difference in yield could come exclusively from the greater number of early applicants accepted.  I quickly used 95% and 65% to get numbers that would fit, and would produce numbers similar to 82% & 76%.

[larkinforever]

[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=9773.msg87235#msg87235 date=1396656194]
The yield is still consistently higher at Harvard (81.9% last year) than Stanford (76.0%).

My impression is that Harvard accepts many more legacies and development projects than Stanford.  So they might have a larger pool of admits that they know will matriculate.
[/quote]

You may well be correct. I think, however, there is another (or an additional) explanation - the higher proportion of early admits (for which there is a substantially higher yield across all schools relative to the overall admit to accept ratio) for Harvard as compared to Stanford can alone probably explain the difference in overall yield at this point in time. That's what I was alluding to in my original post (though apparently not very clearly). As opposed to the current, relatively modest difference in yield between the two schools, the historically higher yield for Harvard could probably not be explained in this way because of the historically larger gap in yield between Harvard and Stanford (though I'm too lazy to do the calcs to verify).

[larkinforever]

[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=9773.msg87235#msg87235 date=1396656194]
The yield is still consistently higher at Harvard (81.9% last year) than Stanford (76.0%).

My impression is that Harvard accepts many more legacies and development projects than Stanford.  So they might have a larger pool of admits that they know will matriculate.
[/quote]

You may well be correct. I think, however, there is another (or an additional) explanation - the higher proportion of early admits (for which there is a substantially higher yield across all schools relative to the overall admit to accept ratio) for Harvard as compared to Stanford can alone probably explain the difference in overall yield at this point in time. That's what I was alluding to in my original post (though apparently not very clearly). As opposed to the current, relatively modest difference in yield between the two schools, the historically higher yield for Harvard could probably not be explained in this way because of the historically larger gap in yield between Harvard and Stanford (though I'm too lazy to do the calcs to verify).

[larkinforever]

I did not have time this morning to do this properly (AYSO-stuff), but it looks like the numbers actually imply a similar yield rate at both schools for the two groups.

If you imagine a roughly 30% spread in yield rates between the early applicant pool and the traditional pool then both schools could have the similar yield rate for both early applicants and traditional date applicants.  The difference in yield could come exclusively from the greater number of early applicants accepted.  I quickly used 95% and 65% to get numbers that would fit, and would produce numbers similar to 82% & 76%.

Thanks - I was too lazy to do the calcs. The yields will be available for this cycle (class of 2018) in about a month. It will be interesting to see the numbers.

[larkinforever]

I did not have time this morning to do this properly (AYSO-stuff), but it looks like the numbers actually imply a similar yield rate at both schools for the two groups.

If you imagine a roughly 30% spread in yield rates between the early applicant pool and the traditional pool then both schools could have the similar yield rate for both early applicants and traditional date applicants.  The difference in yield could come exclusively from the greater number of early applicants accepted.  I quickly used 95% and 65% to get numbers that would fit, and would produce numbers similar to 82% & 76%.

Thanks - I was too lazy to do the calcs. The yields will be available for this cycle (class of 2018) in about a month. It will be interesting to see the numbers.

[larkinforever]

I had a Stanford dormmate from South Dakota, but that was some years ago.

Same here. She referred to herself as "the South Dakota quota".  :D

[larkinforever]

I had a Stanford dormmate from South Dakota, but that was some years ago.

Same here. She referred to herself as "the South Dakota quota".  :D

[CornFed]

As to the whole issue of feeling like it was some kind of mistake that I got into Stanford, I still feel pretty certain that the explanation is strongly rooted in the fact that I grew up in Iowa.  That, combined with a modest talent at test taking, gave me access to the life-changing opportunity I was given to attend.

To my knowledge I was the only person in the history of Sioux City Central High School to attend Stanford up to that point.  I would have held that distinction for eternity, but a young friend of mine was accepted two years later, just as the high school was being closed.

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

Now don't start dissing Iowans.  They are generally well-educated, well-traveled people.  This revealed a bit of a blind spot, that I find amusing.

[CornFed]

As to the whole issue of feeling like it was some kind of mistake that I got into Stanford, I still feel pretty certain that the explanation is strongly rooted in the fact that I grew up in Iowa.  That, combined with a modest talent at test taking, gave me access to the life-changing opportunity I was given to attend.

To my knowledge I was the only person in the history of Sioux City Central High School to attend Stanford up to that point.  I would have held that distinction for eternity, but a young friend of mine was accepted two years later, just as the high school was being closed.

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

Now don't start dissing Iowans.  They are generally well-educated, well-traveled people.  This revealed a bit of a blind spot, that I find amusing.

[Kathy]

CornFed ~
Iowa consistently ranks at the top for public school performance on standardized tests. Among the three colleges where I have taught, I found Iowa State students to be the best students by far, and the best prepared for college.

[Kathy]

CornFed ~
Iowa consistently ranks at the top for public school performance on standardized tests. Among the three colleges where I have taught, I found Iowa State students to be the best students by far, and the best prepared for college.

[Nan3cy]

As to the whole issue of feeling like it was some kind of mistake that I got into Stanford, I still feel pretty certain that the explanation is strongly rooted in the fact that I grew up in Iowa.  That, combined with a modest talent at test taking, gave me access to the life-changing opportunity I was given to attend.

To my knowledge I was the only person in the history of Sioux City Central High School to attend Stanford up to that point.  I would have held that distinction for eternity, but a young friend of mine was accepted two years later, just as the high school was being closed.

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

Now don't start dissing Iowans.  They are generally well-educated, well-traveled people.  This revealed a bit of a blind spot, that I find amusing.

My experience growing up in Wisconsin is that geography just isn't Midwesterners' strong suit. When an American Field Service student from New Zealand lived with us in Madison my senior year in high school, she got pretty frustrated with the people who said, "Oh, New Zealand - isn't that that little island right off the cost of Australia?" (The ones who confused it with New Guinea, she just thought was funny.) She was not so amused with the people who complimented her English, and asked if she learned in school, or the woman - the wife of the vice-principal!! - who asked if New Zealanders celebrate Christmas in December or in June...

[Nan3cy]

As to the whole issue of feeling like it was some kind of mistake that I got into Stanford, I still feel pretty certain that the explanation is strongly rooted in the fact that I grew up in Iowa.  That, combined with a modest talent at test taking, gave me access to the life-changing opportunity I was given to attend.

To my knowledge I was the only person in the history of Sioux City Central High School to attend Stanford up to that point.  I would have held that distinction for eternity, but a young friend of mine was accepted two years later, just as the high school was being closed.

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

Now don't start dissing Iowans.  They are generally well-educated, well-traveled people.  This revealed a bit of a blind spot, that I find amusing.

My experience growing up in Wisconsin is that geography just isn't Midwesterners' strong suit. When an American Field Service student from New Zealand lived with us in Madison my senior year in high school, she got pretty frustrated with the people who said, "Oh, New Zealand - isn't that that little island right off the cost of Australia?" (The ones who confused it with New Guinea, she just thought was funny.) She was not so amused with the people who complimented her English, and asked if she learned in school, or the woman - the wife of the vice-principal!! - who asked if New Zealanders celebrate Christmas in December or in June...

[Bruce Wang]

frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

Yeah people think I grew up in Florida and went to a college in Connecticut.

I went to a college fair to represent Stanford for Brookline High (one of the best high schools in Massachusetts) and there were several kids who claimed to think Stanford was in Connecticut.  I'm not sure if they were joking especially because these ones seemed more interested in the university next to us (schools were arranged in alphabetical order).  It shall remain nameless.  No, it was not Swarthmore.

[Bruce Wang]

frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

Yeah people think I grew up in Florida and went to a college in Connecticut.

I went to a college fair to represent Stanford for Brookline High (one of the best high schools in Massachusetts) and there were several kids who claimed to think Stanford was in Connecticut.  I'm not sure if they were joking especially because these ones seemed more interested in the university next to us (schools were arranged in alphabetical order).  It shall remain nameless.  No, it was not Swarthmore.